September 30, 2003

INVENTIVE ALISON

Alison Broinowski -- you’ll remember her as the woman who believes beer is a root cause of terrorism -- now claims in The Age that the US would not defend Australia if it were attacked:

In all our wars, the aim is to assure the electorate that our ally will guarantee us protection in the future ... In fact, the US line on defending Australia remains the same, and our efforts in Iraq have not changed it. In Sydney on August 13, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage made that clear, saying "your system is yours to defend". If there were a future problem involving Indonesia, he added, Australian leadership would be "essential". In other words, unless American interests are threatened, we're still on our own.

For China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, I believe that their behavior as states with global economic reach has perhaps now outpaced their behavior as states with global political reach. For all the Asian players, however, it is fair to say that this international system in which your fortunes are now so deeply vested is yours to protect and defend. Challenges such as terrorism, HIV/AIDS, trafficking in narcotics, trafficking in persons, and yes, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, these are challenges for us all. And this is the reality which Australia has long recognized.

He isn’t talking about cutting Australia adrift. He’s talking about a whole bunch of countries and a whole range of issues. Broinowski’s interpretation is wilfully idiotic (also, crucially, her version of the speech has it as “your system” rather than the transcript’s “this international system”). Now for the second Armitage quote:

This is a time when the world community needs to help restore Indonesia's faith in itself. Certainly by cooperating in counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts, but also by engaging across the board, in particular by helping this country along the road to economic and to political reform, and in so doing, to deny the terrorists the safe haven they often seek in misfortune and in turmoil. Without a doubt, it will be Australian leadership which will be essential in this regard.

He’s talking about Australia’s leadership in helping Indonesia generally, not some “future problem” that might require Australian military action and American aid. Broinowski omits the following section of Armitage’s speech:

In just two days' time we're going to mark the anniversary of the end of World War II. But that terrible, destructive battle was also the beginning of a special relationship between our two nations. At a time when much of the Australian military was in the Middle East and in Europe, defending allied interests, U.S. forces came here to defend Australia. We joined together then to protect our national security, but also to protect regional stability and to build a global system based on peace and prosperity.

We join together today for much the same purpose. I believe there will be a great continuity in our cause, forged out of the bones of our grandfathers and the blood of our children as we move forward into this millennium.

Why not send an email to The Age pointing out Alison Broinowski’s abuse of their op-ed pages?

Posted by Tim Blair at September 30, 2003 04:27 AM

Comments

"Why not send an email to The Age pointing out Alison Broinowski’s abuse of their op-ed pages?"

Broinowski: What's more, it emerges from such diverse American authorities as Congressman Newt Gingrich, writer Daniel Ellsberg, and a publication of the Brookings Institution that they didn't even know Australian troops were in Iraq.

Newt Gingrich is a former Congressman. If Broinowski is so concerned with people being correctly informed shouldn't she know this?

As for Daniel Ellsberg, he's preoccupied wringing a living from his Vietnam War experiences even though he was a lower order desk jockey.

From another American - we would help in a minute, a good friend and ally would not be forgotten - even if a democrat were in office. If the government didn't want to act, I believe the population would force their action.

Congrats Austrailia...you have your own Maureen Dowd! Do let us know,Tim, if the AGE has any response to criticism of this dowdified article. This American agrees with Joe and Kevin , we are on your side!

Well hold on now. Let's not be too hasty with this defending Australia thing. I think a lot would have to do with who and how Australia is attacked. Suppose a division of really hot Swedish chicks in thongs attacks Australia. Sure, we would like to get in on it. But would we be defending Australia? I fear that we would only prolong the entanglment, perhaps 50 to 60 years. Same thing would happen if the Italian 36th, 24th, and 36th Gina Lolabridgida divisions assualted Perth wearing nothing but wet suits.

What you are pleased to call Broinowski's "interpretation" goes far beyond being "wilfully idiotic". No person--and I mean NO ONE--reading Armitage's comments could possibly come to the conclusions that Ms. Broinowski has regarding the clear meaning of those comments without engaging in a level of deliberate distortion indistinguishable from lying. This is far, far more serious than "idiocy". It is dishonesty of the basest sort and an abuse of trust in a journalist or commentator that is quite simply unforgivable.

Ms. Broinowski should be sacked immediately and forced to work in a field more suited to her talents. Packing fish comes to mind...

What really pisses me off about this old sow Groinkowski is that she shits on australia from a great height while she sucks on the public purse like a bloated parasite. Evil old bitch will hopefully pass away soon.

"Why not send an email to The Age pointing out Alison Broinowski’s abuse of their op-ed pages?"

Also done. I really detest such people who are simply after attention and surely don't believe the rubbish they write, but desperately seek a public profile. I think she's trying to be the pauper's Germaine Greer.

Done deed- bet it doesn't see the letters page.
"Once again , a Fairfax publication has set a new standard; unfortunately it is an all time low standard. Who (or what) is sub-editing the Op/Ed pages these days? The most junior cadet would not have missed the blantant and manipulative editing of Richard Armitage's speech to establish some undergraduate point, as has been done by Ms. Broinowski in today's "Age". This is the sort of yellow journalism expected from things like "Green Left Weekly", not a national broadsheet. No wonder the "Age" is destined, like the SMH, to joind the Dodo and the ABC in extinction."

No question we should have gotten into WW2 earlier. Hindsight being 20/20 and all. We also should have removed Saddam in 1991, and taken out Bin Laden years ago...but we are doing it now. The fight against terrorism IS in Australia's interest, and the interest of the whole world....hopefully we are not ALL too late.

Nemesis's point about the start of WWII is well noted, although some people might peg the start date as early as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

But was Australia ever under attack before Pearl Harbor? We were there at Coral Sea when Australia was in real peril. When was the Darwin air raid?

Ok. This is a technicality since Australia and Britain were already deeply involved in the fight against fascism long before America fully entered, only after having been attacked directly.

If we're looking for lessons in this, the point is that isolationism in the face of an implaccable foe is a grave mistake. Staying out of the fight will not ensure your safety. See Pearl Harbor. Howard should remind Australians of this when some of them advocate staying away from America's conflicts. I hope that America has learned the lesson that you cannot be passive when allies are in trouble.

Oh come on. We have a water barrier and alot of decent submarines. No one's invading us. Indos have 200 million people, do they have boats to get them here? No.

If the shit hits the fan the indos will slaughter the people they always do- each other.

Also we have a nuclear 'research' program, high end technology sector and a satillite launch program, add those to geter and Australia could be turning out quite a decent little boutique ICBM within a year. We have no need for nuclear weapons and every reason to dissuade a regional arms race, but we could make them if we wanted to and THAT'S our final garantee.

This nation will not be invaded.

We're supporting the US because it's the right thing to do, liberal democracy vs corrupt tyranny. Too bad Europe is too spineless to do the same, but America and Australia were both founded by a certain kind of European- those that hated fucking Europe.

You shouldn't say things like that. For about ten years I had to sit and listen to people say "Oh, Miami won't ever be hit by another hurricane because (insert stupid reason made up out of ill-understood scientific theories or just whole cloth)." Then along came Andrew.

Point taken. Whereas Ellsberg might have been a "big cheese" within the Defence establishment, he was just one of many faceless bureaucrats. Prior to his whistleblowing, the public would not have taken any interest in his opinions on foreign relations. Similarly, there is no reason for Australians to be concerned at his supposed lack of awareness of our involvement in Iraq.

Alison Broinowski's assertion that in the event of an attack on Australia, the United States would not stand by its ANZUS obligation to join us in our defence, is dishonest and must not go uncorrected.

Ms Broinowski's assertion is dishonest because she wilfully misquotes the US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage.

Where Ms Broinowski quotes Mr Armitage as having told Australians "your system is yours to defend", he actually said "For all the Asian players, however, it is fair to say that this international system in which your fortunes are now so deeply vested is yours to protect and defend."

Mr Armitage did not speak of cutting Australia adrift. Rather, he spoke about a number of countries with a vested interest in defending an international system based on freedom and democracy, probably because free democracies do not go to war with one another.

Likewise, Ms Broinowski misquotes Mr Armitage as implying that in relation to Indonesia, unless American interests are involved, we're on our own.

Mr Armitage actually said "This is a time when the world community needs to help restore Indonesia's faith in itself. Certainly by cooperating in counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts, but also by engaging across the board, in particular by helping this country along the road to economic and to political reform, and in so doing, to deny the terrorists the safe haven they often seek in misfortune and in turmoil. Without a doubt, it will be Australian leadership which will be essential in this regard."

It's clear I've hit a sore point, so my work here is done for the day. Off to the pub for a schooner or three.

Could it be that some of you have actually been provoked to think?(Andrea apart, of course. The substance of most issues seems to elude little Miss Hysteria. One wonders why the sad bint even bothers).

"I can guarantee you that if anyone attacked Australia, the US would be in the thick of it with you. Anyone going to war with Austalia is going to war with the US..."

Well, it's not clear to me quite how you can guarantee it, but I think we certainly all hope you're right, John.

But you might not be. And what Australia needs to do is be in a position to defend itself. We're certainly not in that position today. And next time we might not have the luxury of over two years before you come dashing to our rescue.

In this day and age wars tend to last weeks and months, not years. Reckon you guys can get your shit together quick enough?

Before 7 December 1941 Australia was confronted by no threat - or potential threat - other than Japan. (If I remember correctly, only Australian volunteers were sent to the European Theatre, just as only US volunteers were involved.) What exactly do you expect that the US should have done to assist Australia when there was no threat?

Why is it that your glib attempts at sarcasm always come across as whine?

Alison Broinowski...Maureen Dowd. I'm not insinuating anything, but has anyone actually seen them together in the same room?

Not only will the U.S. defend Australia, but if the Norwegian-Australian War heats up and the Norwegians repeat Operation Norge Nurse--sending a wave of blonde nurses onto Australian beaches--I personally volunteer to be on the beach to meet them and to offer resistance...well, at least to meet them.

Nemesis:
The essential point in war is not whether you are prompt in arriving, but rather that you are the last to leave. We are not an especially warlike country. The last time we had a war with one of our immediate neighbors was against Mexico in 1848, unless you want to count Cuba in 1898. Not many European nations can make a similar claim.

but the US doesn't involve itself in wars until it feels it has to to protect its own interest.

WWI - not until our ships started getting sunk.

WWII - our allies - proven in WWI - the British were certainly under attack. We did not support them. Not until we were attacked.

then of course there was that east asia thing where we went to help our wonderful allies the French when it *wasn't* in our interest. And got (deservedly) pounded for it. In this case, the exception will prove the rule, I'll bet.

So, I'd say if Australia were attacked, several Americans, myself included, would scream in rage and petition our government to do something. Several others would moan "not in my name". and the pols would do nothing.

Before anyone casts me a troll, I'm not. I am fully behind the war in Iraq simply because saddam and company were evil incarnate and needed to be removed.

What y'all are forgetting is the change in times. The US got suckered into WWI, by European propaganda, into a war that really didn't concern her. Basically WWI was just European power politicas as usual. This lead to a good deal of "a pox on both your houses" feelings toward Europe leading to post WWI isolationism. Not that it mattered in the European scheme of things since we were considered (and considered ourselves to be) a second rate player on the world scene (by choice on our part, unfortunately). That we didn't see Hitler as the devil he really was was due in part to the foul taste left in our mouths by Allied propaganda in WWI. We thought it was more of the same. Since the end of WWII we were the only game in town to oppose the USSR, the rest of Europe being pretty well beaten down with bombing and general war-tiredness. This has led to a re-arrangement of US thinking. That and things like treaties that we have with you, and Europe, that didn't exist prior to WWII. We will stand by Australia (probably even New Zealand if asked) if and when you are invaded. If the moral arguments and ferver expressed above, consider this: Standing by our friends IS in our best interests.

You are wrong. The US lent England plenty of support prior to 12/7/41. As a matter of a fact the US was in a de facto war with Germany well prior to the formal declaration of war. The US was also gearing up for war with Japan before Pearl Harbor. Review your history dear.

Nemesis, Get your hate-filled head out of your ass -- though you clearly have no interest in knowing history. All you know is rage. Grow up.

There is a pretty big voice of isolationism in the US right now. It doesn't have the majority of the populace behind it, but it does have the media - both Hollywood and the "serious" outlets.

We'll see in the next election (even as early as the dem primary) how serious Americans are about defending our ideals against terror. And if Americans can't be counted on to stand for the US, do you honestly think they'll go out for another country? I mean, just look at how we treat Israel...

Then again, I'm just an ignorant mass, and a pessimistic mass at that. I have been wrong before, and will be wrong again.

One more thought: Australia doesn't have all that oiiiiiilllll for us to steal. So we'd have no reason to defend y'all. And you are the source of Bananas in Pajamas, for which you should be chastised. Thoroughly.

Bird woman, the isolationists, as you call them, don't seem to be in power right now. Perhaps some of them have even realized that we tried that stuff and it didn't work. All they can do now is talk... and try to destroy morale with their despair.

As for Nemesis... no really, too pathetic. I like the way he stoops to the insults immediately; no point, just start throwing slime. And the sad thing is, it's not even entertaining. There's just too much frustrated, impotent rage showing. Sad.